Agenda item - BH2012/04035 - 43 Russell Square, Brighton - Full Planning Permission

Change of use from single dwelling (C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) on upper floors and 1no one bedroom basement flat. Alterations including increased roof height of rear extension and provision of slate roof. (Part Retrospective).

RECOMMENDATION – GRANT

Change of use from single dwelling (C3) to House in Multiple Occupation (Sui Generis) on upper floors and 1no one bedroom basement flat. Alterations including increased roof height of rear extension and provision of slate roof. (Part Retrospective)

(1)                   The Area Planning Manager, Nicola Hurley, introduced the application and gave a presentation by reference to photographs plans and elevational drawings. The application site related to a four storey mid-terrace property on the southern edge of Russell Square; planning permission was sought for a change of use to create a one bedroom flat on the basement floor, and a house in multiple occupation (HMO) on the other floors for five HMO type units – the application also sought the provision of new windows. A late letter of representation had been received from one of the Local Ward Councillors, Ania Kitcat, highlighting the stress the development would cause to the listed building; overcrowding; safety hazards and the increased level of HMOs in the area. The Local Plan supported the provision of HMOs, and stated that it was necessary to have an adequate provision within the city; the ward was also outside of the area for the new Article 4 Direction in relation to buildings in type C3 and C4 use. The mapping exercise had also been undertaken and found only one other registered HMO within a 50 metre radius (giving a percentage of 0.4% - which would increase to 0.8% with the inclusion of the site) which was compliant with policy. The proposal was acceptable and considered appropriate. For the reasons set out in the report the application was recommended for approval.

Public Speakers and Questions

(2)                   Ms Julie White spoke on behalf of Ms Jenny Piercy, a local resident, and stated that almost all of the residents were against the application. She highlighted that policy sought to create and protect mixed and balanced communities; however, this application would not achieve this as the area had a number of guest houses as well as three large hostels and needed more family homes. Ms White referenced a murder at the property and noted that the area was already a ‘hotspot’ for anti-social behaviour. It was considered that an HMO would not help to balance the community as, she believed, some of the guest houses were already operating as unlicensed HMOs, and the Committee were not in receipt of information from the Electoral Roll and Council Tax records that would support this. The Committee were asked to take a common sense approach to the application and exclude Sussex Heights from the calculation in relation to HMO density; furthermore it was noted that that property was already in a very poor state of repair and the change of use could further add stress to the building. Issues in relation to overcrowding and fire hazards were also cited as reasons for the refusal.

(3)                   Councillor Robins asked about the current occupants of the house and in response Ms White explained that there had previously been one resident.

(4)                   Councillor Davey asked about the mix of types of dwellings in the area, and Ms White explained that it was a mix of guest houses, hotels and residential flat conversions – she stated that no. 43 had been the sole remaining building in Russell Square that was a single unit.

(5)                   Councillor Jones asked if the house had previously been flats, and Ms White explained that she was not sure, but noted it had had squatters recently and had been a family home for many years.

(6)                   Dr Raouf spoke in his capacity as the applicant and stated that when he had purchased the house it had been in use as eleven bedsits, and this was documented by the Council. He stated that upon buying it immediate work had been undertaken due to the very poor state of repair, and the property had been reconfigured in a manner very close to the original layout. It was his intention to retain the use as an HMO, and he had agreed to make the basement unit a separate dwelling. The potential monthly rental price of £325-350 would be affordable for low wage retail workers, and opened up the rental market for people in a lower income bracket. Mr Raouf concluded that the property had been an unregistered HMO for some years, and it was no longer suitable to be a family dwelling as it was too large and many of the original features were lost.

(7)                   In response to a query from Councillor Cox it was explained by Dr Raouf that when let the property would be supervised through a managing agent, and cleaners would be employed.

(8)                   Mr Gowans asked queries in relation to sound and fire proofing; however, this latter matter related to Building Control and was not within the remit of the Committee to consider.

(9)                   Councillor Davey asked how many people would be living in each of the units, and Dr Raouf explained that each would be let to two people, but in reality it was very difficult to control the number of people living at the property.

Questions for Officers

(10)               In response to a query from Councillor Gilbey it was explained that Officers were not able to elaborate on the detail of the planning history in the report as this was all the information they held.

(11)               Councillor Davey asked for more information about other HMOs in the area, and it was explained that the immediate 50 metre radius had a low proportion; however, if Sussex Heights were removed the calculation would still give a figure below the 10% outlined in policy.

Debate and Decision Making Process

(12)               Mr Gowans explained that the Conservation Advisory Group (CAG) were recommending refusal to the Committee; he stated the use of the building would be very intensive and he was alarmed at the applicant’s comments that the number living inside the property could not be controlled. He stated that the building was small and expressed concern about potential access to a roof terrace through a window.

(13)               Councillor Cox stated he was concerned about the application, and felt that the approach lacked common sense as Sussex Height was an anomaly in the area. This building was the last remaining single house, and the application sought to turn it into something that would fall short of decent homes standards. He also felt a very compelling argument had been put forward by the Local Ward Councillor and that this application would be a step backwards for Russell Square.

(14)               Councillor Carden noted that he welcomed the addition of a sprinkler system.

(15)               Councillor Davey stated that the decision was difficult, but had concerns about the potential number of people living at the property – he was considering voting against the Officer recommendation.

(16)               Councillor Hyde noted that she agreed with both Councillors Cox and Davey; she was very uncomfortable with the application and noted that the building was Grade 2 listed and felt the proposed use would undermine the listing.

(17)               Councillor Jones noted that he felt the points in relation to the affordable housing for young people in the city were compelling; however, he noted the use would be very intensive.

(18)               Councillor Robins felt that the change to an HMO was inevitable.

(19)               Councillor Phillips noted she was of two minds in relation to the application, and it was clarified that the Committee could not impose conditions in relation to occupancy numbers as this was covered by separate legislation.

(20)               Before a vote was taken the Area Planning Manager noted that there was already an approved permission for listed building consent for the internal alterations, and the property would have to meet the necessary standards for HMOs – this would require licensing under separate legislation.

(21)               A vote was taken and the Officer recommendation to grant was not carried on a vote of 5 in support, and 6 against. Councillor Cox proposed reasons for refusal and these were seconded by Councillor Davey; a short recess was then held to allow Councillor Mac Cafferty; Councillor Cox; Councillor Davey; the Head of Development Control; the Senior Solicitor and the Area Planning Manager to draft the reasons for refusal in full. These reasons were then read to the Committee and it was agreed that they reflected what had been put forward by Members. A recorded vote was then taken and Councillors: Hyde, Cox, Davey, Gilbey, Ann Norman and Wells voted that planning permission be refused and Councillors: Mac Cafferty, Jones, Carden, Robins and Phillips voted that it be granted.

56.5       RESOLVED – That the Committee has taken into consideration the Officer recommendation to grant, but resolves to REFUSE planning permission for the reasons set out below.

        i.                 The intensity of use by virtue of the subdivision of the building would be harmful to the amenity of future occupiers of the building and to nearby residents contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005

      ii.                 The proposed development by virtue of its high intensity residential use will lead to an imbalance of types of residential use within the surrounding area contrary to policy QD27 of the Brighton and Hove Local Plan 2005 and policies SA6 and CP21 of the emerging City Plan Part 1.

Note: Councillor Wakefield was not present at the meeting.